Abrams on course to have a hand in every sci-fi franchise we like.

Share this story

On Thursday afternoon, Deadline reported that J.J. Abrams is going to be the new mastermind behind the forthcoming Disney Star Wars movies. Disney purchased the rights to the franchise in late October and said it was on track to release in 2015. Since then, everybody has been speculating about who will take the helm for Episode 7. (Toy Story 3 writer Michael Arndt was previously introduced as the scribe for Episode 7.)

It should be noted that The Hollywood Reporter reported only that Abrams is “in talks” and “negotiating” his contract as director of the next Star Wars film. But Deadline wrote that a “source with knowledge of the situation” told the blog, “It’s done deal with J.J.” As recently as November, Abrams told EW that Star Wars wouldn't, in fact, be his next project after Star Trek Into Darkness (which is set to come out this year). “I have some original stuff I am working on next,” Abrams told EW. Other sources reported Ben Affleck was also in the running for the role. Affleck recently directed and starred in Argo, a movie based on a story originally appearing in Ars' sister publication, Wired.

During Disney's October conference call about the acquisition of Lucas Film, company executives said they acquired “extensive treatments” for movies seven through nine, in addition to the purchase of George Lucas' company. “We plan to release one film every two to three years” after 2015's Episode 7, an executive said. No word yet on whether Abrams will direct episodes eight and nine. (And no word whether this will turn out OK in the end for fellow Star Wars faithful.)

Great. He ruined Star Trek, now he can ruin Star Wars. Not that Star Trek wasn't an entertaining, albeit nonsensical movie, but it didn't feel like Trek. After managing to turning Spock emo, I can't wait to see the emotion fountains from whatever Skywalker appears in Episode 7. Anakin from Ep. 3 will seem positively stoic in comparison.

And remember how Anakin's landspeeder love and the Hoth attack scene were transplanted into Star Trek? I now look forward to seeing V'ger appear in Star Wars as a Sith. It'll be presented as the next evolution of the General Greivous line!

Personally, I've liked JJ Abrams work for the most part. Granted, most of that work encompasses TV shows. Still, I think there actually are opportunities to improve the Star Wars franchise, but there are definitely more opportunities to screw it up. Regardless of how well he does, some will be happy, some will be pissed.

Not that it's much consolation now, but I always thought that stylistically his vision of Star Trek would have been better matched with the Star Wars universe. Guess now I get to see him rui- ah... attempt... both.

I'm a big fan of the original Star Trek movie series (well everything but 5). I thought Abrams did a great job on the new Star Trek movie. Of course it's not the old Star Trek, but it's good, and that's all that really matters to me. Abrams would be my number one choice for the new Star Wars movies.

The only disappointment that I'm feeling from this is that I'd like a director who prizes practical effects over almost anything else.

Most directors, like JJ, will say that they love real sets/makeup/miniature shots, but wimp out when it gets too big or complicated. He's got Disney's checkbook behind him now, so I hope they go full on with the real, physical filmmaking.

Also, in regards to lens flares; it's funny how that's by far the most common criticism of his work, and I'd bet most people wouldn't have even noticed them (or even known what they were) without the few people who did, and popularized it.

I really don't get the 'it's not real Star Trek' hate directed at the 2009 movie. I was a huge fan of TOS, and when I was a kid, loved the animated series and obsessively collected the non-canon books.All the stuff about Kirk being the cocky, fighty, egotastic jerk, and Spock's childhood issues could have been straight out one of those... it felt right for those characters. IMO, you could realistically see Chris Pine's Kirk and Quinto's Spock growing into the characters we loved in TOS.

The story was certainly not an exercise in intellectual or philosophical exploration, but the characterizations and acting were spot on.

"For my ally is the Flare, and a powerful ally it is. The Lens creates it, makes it grow. Its energy surrounds us and binds us. Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter. You must see the Flare around you; here, between you, me, the tree, the rock, everywhere, yes. Even between the land and the ship.”

I really don't get the 'it's not real Star Trek' hate directed at the 2009 movie. I was a huge fan of the TOS, and when I was a kid, loved the animated series and obsessively collected the non-canon books.All the stuff about Kirk being the cocky, fighty, egotastic jerk, and Spock's childhood issues could have been straight out one of those... it felt right for those characters. IMO, you could realistically see Chris Pine's Kirk and Quinto's Spock growing into the characters we loved in the TOS.

The story was certainly not an exercise in intellectual or philosophical exploration, but the characterizations and acting were spot on.

Too bad Abrams couldn't have managed that without completely throwing out the preexisting continuity and embarking on a massive ego trip even bigger than the new Enterprise.

yeah, star trek 2009 was a "fun" movie, with explosions, destructions, gratuitous emo and lens flare everywhere and I hate it

no, not hate it like it was a bad movie with bad people doing bad art. It is a truly professional movie. But it was NOT star trek, it was NOT interesting, it was NOT space sf impressive, there were NO soul, the scene with young Kirk was more deep than seeing Vulcan destroyed (!). The settings was bland, the characters (maybe Scotty is stealing the scenes, yes) dull, the pace frenetic with no time for actors to shows whatever people should feel.

There were no ship, mostly no exposure about the Enterprise (I don't know, it's just your most important place for these characters), and don't let me speak about Spock.

and.. in the end, the blatant illogical immorality : to kill the bad guy (defenseless, his ships in ruins, no more weapons and all, as the CHARACTERS tell) in a cooool explosions. Is it about vengeance ? human faults ? young Spock in transition ? no no no.. just for the keeeewl..

so yeah, it was a pretty weird james bond in space with a weird companion, and old geezer and a lacks of sexy bond girl (just one, and not with Bond ?) but it was not Star Trek, it was not beautiful, it was not exciting. It was whatever new james bond of the time or Transformers 43, whatever you want.

... now I'm thinking of it, Abrams would be perfect to continue the "legacy" of Georges Lucas with the star wars prequel !

-And YES I like action movie with big ships. I'm going back to see Batman Dark Knight and Inception. At last, in these movies, actors was allowed to live and the movies trying to tell something in impressive vista.

Lucas' prequels were not "real Star Wars" with the political plots and dislikable characters. JJ Adams will very likely do a decent job emulating the spirit of the original movies, just like he did with Star Trek TOS.

And some fans will always find a reason to complain. If you liked the tedious prequels and all the expanded universe stuff, you're probably out of luck.

If the biggest issue everyone has with JJ Abrams is lens flares, then that's not all that bad. I find it funny that many people feel the need to poke fun at the use of lens flares over and over again. I think the only one of his movies to do that was the first Star Trek he did. I wonder how many of us didn't notice anyway until after seeing the "how it should have ended" version. I didn't.

Personally, I don't think a JJ Abrams Star Wars can be any worse than a George Lucas one. The writing on the prequels was terrible. I think Abrams will do a fine job.

I really don't get the 'it's not real Star Trek' hate directed at the 2009 movie. I was a huge fan of the TOS, and when I was a kid, loved the animated series and obsessively collected the non-canon books.All the stuff about Kirk being the cocky, fighty, egotastic jerk, and Spock's childhood issues could have been straight out one of those... it felt right for those characters. IMO, you could realistically see Chris Pine's Kirk and Quinto's Spock growing into the characters we loved in the TOS.

The story was certainly not an exercise in intellectual or philosophical exploration, but the characterizations and acting were spot on.

I think that is the entire point. I thought the casting and acting was acceptable. The special effects were overly dramatic but okay (minus the blinding lens flare). The point is that he completely doesn't understand the point of Star Trek. The shows, even at their weakest, are at least an attempt at exploration of character growth, morality, or even future science/tech in a few cases. There is some sort of underlying point to each episode.

There is no point to the new Star Trek. I am not even particularly offended that it has a completely incoherent story. I am of the opinion that getting upset about the Star Trek timeline is also missing the point (although, there is no reason to disrespect it the way JJ did unless you have a pretty compeling narrative to tell and he most certainly did not). An action movie without motivation is everything that Star Trek is not.

I really don't get the 'it's not real Star Trek' hate directed at the 2009 movie. I was a huge fan of the TOS, and when I was a kid, loved the animated series and obsessively collected the non-canon books.All the stuff about Kirk being the cocky, fighty, egotastic jerk, and Spock's childhood issues could have been straight out one of those... it felt right for those characters. IMO, you could realistically see Chris Pine's Kirk and Quinto's Spock growing into the characters we loved in the TOS.

The story was certainly not an exercise in intellectual or philosophical exploration, but the characterizations and acting were spot on.

Too bad Abrams couldn't have managed that without completely throwing out the preexisting continuity and embarking on a massive ego trip even bigger than the new Enterprise.

The story wasn't entirely great, but it wasn't horrible. One of the biggest pressures on the production team, from what I understand, was in making this movie accessible outside of the Trekker community, which succeeded wildly, I think, without dumbing it down too much (arguable). I don't quite get the continuity objection either. If you are going to 'reboot', as you were, you have to throw out preexisting continuity or, by definition, you just end up regurgitating the same stories exactly as they were shot in 1966 - 1969.

The 'alternate universe' handwaving gives them the opportunity to take the same characters, with the same dynamic, and apply new stories, and, more debateable, modern cinematic sensibilities.